Americans have seen it on their televisions and heard it on their radios: political ads backed by unnamed sources; the work of so-called advocacy
groups backed by undisclosed donors; damaging policy agendas orchestrated by special interests; endless money muddying the waters of our debate with
confusion and voter suppression.

This has been the impact over the past four years of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The narrow court majority, overturning decades of
precedent, opened the floodgates to millions of dollars in secret, special-interest spending on elections. Indeed, Citizens United shook the
foundation of our democracy: the principle that, in the United States of America, it is the voices of the people, not the bank accounts of the
privileged few, that determine the outcome of our elections and the policies of our government.

Libs love to rewrite the Constitution when it fits their agenda. Other times they just ignore the Constitution when that fits their agenda. Nancy
Pelosi would be the idiot in Hillary Clinton's village.

OccamsRazor04
So now they want to rewrite the first and 2nd amendments .. what is next?

The first amendment rights were rewritten (reinterpreted) by the supreme court when they determined a corporation (an entity for commerce), has the
same rights as a actual person.

They are currently proposing a bill:

H.R. 20, the Government by the People Act, which is to be introduced Wednesday. This sensible, straightforward legislation would:

● Encourage the participation of everyday Americans in the funding of campaigns by providing a refundable $25 My Voice Tax Credit. This would bring
the voices of the broader public into the funding side of campaigns and democratize the relationship between money and speech.

● Establish a Freedom From Influence Matching Fund to boost the power of small-dollar contributions. To be eligible for these matching funds, a
candidate would have to agree to a limit on large donations and demonstrate broad-based support from a network of small-dollar contributors. Amplified
by the Freedom From Influence Matching Fund, the voices of everyday Americans would be as powerful as those of big donors.

● Provide candidates with an opportunity to earn additional resources in the homestretch of a campaign so that the voices of the people are not
completely drowned out by super political action committees and other dark-money interests. In the wake of Citizens United, this kind of support is
critical to ensuring that citizen-backed candidates have staying power.

Whether or not there is something inherently bad tied in with the bill that might a sweeping negative influence, I can't say as I haven't read the
bill. But it's not as if the decision by the supreme court was in line with the constitution or its intention when it was drafted.

Americans have seen it on their televisions and heard it on their radios: political ads backed by unnamed sources; the work of so-called advocacy
groups backed by undisclosed donors; damaging policy agendas orchestrated by special interests; endless money muddying the waters of our debate with
confusion and voter suppression.

This has been the impact over the past four years of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The narrow court majority, overturning decades of
precedent, opened the floodgates to millions of dollars in secret, special-interest spending on elections. Indeed, Citizens United shook the
foundation of our democracy: the principle that, in the United States of America, it is the voices of the people, not the bank accounts of the
privileged few, that determine the outcome of our elections and the policies of our government.

Yeah, politics aside, Citizens United is dumb. Leave it alone, and watch it blossom into the future, and the dumb will get worse and worse. Especially
as robots get involved. www.zerohedge.com...

But Its what SCOTUS ruled, and those trying to undo it are on constitutionally shaky ground. I just wish SCOTUS would stop with their nonsense
passivity on the issue, and realize they have the power to overturn the previous precedents. Everyone understands: People are people, people alone are
people. When you get away from the 2+2=4 basics like that and start claiming that groups of people come together like Voltron to legally form new
people, you weaken the entire fabric of the American experiment. I can't wait for the Supreme Court to find itself having to declare the rights of an
army of pleasure tool shaped spam robots to march the streets 24/7 as constitutional because they are part of a corporation, and as such, represent
the "free speech" of the corporation, and thus a "person".

As our so called greatest thinkers, psychologists, and whomever the "establishment" is comprised of, think they understand the mind and potential
behaviors of individuals due to whatever associated precursor they can came up with, in this case specifically, what people may say, post, text, etc
etc....we will travel further and further down a path of Orwellian precision.

Does anyone remember that quantum experiment, showing how the photon acted as a wave when no observers were present, but acted as a single, collapsed
particle when observed? Perhaps in a way we as a species DO guide the paradigm which mostly governs our people. Surely we must understand that we
have much to learn, before we can begin even if solidly trifling with many of the things we are messing with.

OccamsRazor04
So now they want to rewrite the first and 2nd amendments .. what is next?

The first amendment rights were rewritten (reinterpreted) by the supreme court when they determined a corporation (an entity for commerce), has the
same rights as a actual person.

They are currently proposing a bill:

H.R. 20, the Government by the People Act, which is to be introduced Wednesday. This sensible, straightforward legislation would:

● Encourage the participation of everyday Americans in the funding of campaigns by providing a refundable $25 My Voice Tax Credit. This would bring
the voices of the broader public into the funding side of campaigns and democratize the relationship between money and speech.

● Establish a Freedom From Influence Matching Fund to boost the power of small-dollar contributions. To be eligible for these matching funds, a
candidate would have to agree to a limit on large donations and demonstrate broad-based support from a network of small-dollar contributors. Amplified
by the Freedom From Influence Matching Fund, the voices of everyday Americans would be as powerful as those of big donors.

● Provide candidates with an opportunity to earn additional resources in the homestretch of a campaign so that the voices of the people are not
completely drowned out by super political action committees and other dark-money interests. In the wake of Citizens United, this kind of support is
critical to ensuring that citizen-backed candidates have staying power.

Whether or not there is something inherently bad tied in with the bill that might a sweeping negative influence, I can't say as I haven't read the
bill. But it's not as if the decision by the supreme court was in line with the constitution or its intention when it was drafted.

Americans have seen it on their televisions and heard it on their radios: political ads backed by unnamed sources; the work of so-called advocacy
groups backed by undisclosed donors; damaging policy agendas orchestrated by special interests; endless money muddying the waters of our debate with
confusion and voter suppression.

This has been the impact over the past four years of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The narrow court majority, overturning decades of
precedent, opened the floodgates to millions of dollars in secret, special-interest spending on elections. Indeed, Citizens United shook the
foundation of our democracy: the principle that, in the United States of America, it is the voices of the people, not the bank accounts of the
privileged few, that determine the outcome of our elections and the policies of our government.

That's my take anyway.

edit on 9-2-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)

Is a union a person? When you can explain that
then I'll give you that corporations are not people.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.